Counsel for Landform Development Group; and 2413350 Ontario Inc; and West End Home Builders Association; and 440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd; and The Rosseau Development Group Inc; and Adi Developments (Masonry) Inc; and 5135 Fairview Holdings Inc; and S & G Consulting Inc; and Branthaven 735 Oval Inc; and Branthaven Development Corp; and 1602211 Ontario Ltd; and Welwyn Interests Inc

Email: skaufman@tmalaw.ca

Counsel for Carriage Gate Homes Inc; and Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc; and Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc; and 1820473 Ontario Inc; and Molinaro Group of Companies; and Renimmob Properties Ltd; and Penta Properties Inc; and Paletta International Corporation; and P&L Livestock Ltd; and Mattamy James Street Limited Partnership; and Douglas Roy Leggat; and 850 Brant Street Properties Inc; and Fairview GO Ltd

David Bronskill Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca

Counsel for Core FSC Lakeshore GP Incorporated; and Vrancorp Group; and Reserve Properties Ltd; and 2584979 Ontario Inc

Meaghan Barrett Email: mbarrett@airdberlis.com

Patrick Harrington Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com

Counsel for New Horizon Development Group; and Millcroft Greens Corporation

Matthew Rutledge Email: mrutledge@foglers.com

Joel Farber Email: jfarber@foglers.com

Counsel for RK [Burlington Mall] Inc; and RioCan Holdings Inc

Arun Anand Email:arjun.anand@infinitydevelopment.ca

Infinity Developments Group Inc

Andrew Jeanrie Email: jeanriea@bennettjones.com

Caroline Jordan Email: cjordan@stikeman.com

Patrick Duffy

Counsel for Inaria Burlington Inc

Email: pduffy@stikeman.com

Counsel for Sofina Foods Inc

Jessica Chen Email: jessica.chen@dentons.com

Counsel for Canadian National Railway Company

Cristin Hunt Email: chunt@goodmans.ca

Roslyn Houser Email: rhouser@goodmans.ca

Counsel for Wal-Mart Canada Corp

David Donnelly Email: david@donnellylaw.ca

Denisa Mertiri Email: denisa@donnellylaw.ca

Counsel for CORE Burlington

Kyle Camarro Email: kyle@camarrogroup.com

Camarro Development Inc

Daintry Klein Email: daintry.klein@gmail.com

Millcroft Greenspace Alliance

Dear Counsel:

RE: Section 23 Request for Review

Decision and Order of Member Molinari issued November 24, 2025

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002219 (Formerly PL210040) and OLT-22-002483

(Formerly PL200150)

This matter involves the Decision and Order of Member C.I. Molinari, issued on November 24, 2025 (“Decision”), in the above-captioned case numbers, OLT-22-002219 and OLT- 22-002483. The Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) received a Request for Review (“Request”) of the Decision from the City of Burlington (“City”). The Request was filed pursuant to section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”) and Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).

Background

This matter arises as a result of a motion for dismissal and directions brought by the City. The motion to dismiss is the subject of this review. The underlying appeals came under s.17(36) of the Planning Act (“the Act”) as appeals of the new City Official Plan (“OP”).

The motion to dismiss sought to have four appeals of the OP dismissed, but prior to the hearing, one of the appeals was withdrawn, leaving three remaining appeals. The subject appeals were brought by Brad Wilson, Camarro Developments Inc., and Infinity Developments Group (“the Appellants”).

The grounds for dismissal raised by the City were all related to the inaction and lack of meaningful steps taken by the Appellants to proceed with their appeals. The City provided details on how it had attempted to move the appeals along, but due to the inactivity or lack of responsiveness from the Appellants, they should be dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the City but found that, despite the extensive and sufficient steps taken by the City to engage with the Appellants, the City should undertake one final attempt to contact the self-represented Appellants. The Tribunal directed the City to attempt to contact the Appellants, informing them of the imminent dismissal of their appeals should they fail to respond. The Tribunal ordered that the City should provide an update on this by October 17, 2025.

Post-Hearing Follow-Up

Following the hearing, City provided an update to the Tribunal via email. The Tribunal reviewed the circumstances and made a finding on each of the outstanding appeals. Regarding the appeal of Mr. Brad Wilson, the City informed the Tribunal that Mr. Wilson had responded to them, indicating that he no longer owned the property and “no longer wish[ed] to attempt to change the zoning.” The City was of the opinion that this was Mr. Wilson wishing to withdraw his appeal.

The Tribunal took the position that the appeal “survives the sale of the property as it is tied to the land, not the owner.” The Tribunal ordered the City to contact the new owner and advise them of the appeal, and inquire whether they intended to proceed with the appeal.

With respect to the appeal of Camarro Developments Inc., the City advised that they had not received a response from Camarro. The Tribunal also made a final attempt to contact Camarro, for which it only received a response back that Camarro wished to maintain the appeal, which the Tribunal found to be insufficient. The Tribunal dismissed the Camarro Developments Inc. appeals.

Finally, the Tribunal considered the Infinity Developments Group Inc. appeal, which had made some progress. The City had met with Infinity, but the parties were unable to achieve a resolution. The City indicated they would need to argue the motion to dismiss for the Infinity appeal at the next CMC. The Tribunal did not render a decision on the Infinity appeal.

The Tribunal continued and considered the City’s motion for directions, but I will not review this section of the Decision as it is not relevant to the Request.

The Request

The City, in its Request, alleges that the Tribunal made various errors of law when the Tribunal Member determined that “an appeal survives the sale of a property as it is tied to the land and not the owner.”

As well, the Request claims that the Tribunal erred by abusing its discretion in refusing to dismiss the Wilson appeal in the face of uncontested evidence before the Tribunal and in light of the Tribunal’s role to provide a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings.

Finally, the Request claims that the Tribunal erred by abusing its discretion in ordering the City to: (i) determine who now owns the subject property; (ii) contact the new owner to advise of the owner of the existence of the Wilson appeal; (iii) inquire as to the new owner’s intended course of action with respect to the appeal; and (iv) provide that owner with a copy of the appeal letter that had been filed by Wilson in 2020.

Appeal is Tied to the Land

The Request claims that the Tribunal erred in law when it determined that an appeal, such as the Wilson appeal, survives the sale of the subject property and it is “tied to the land.”

The Request claims that an appeal is not tied to the land, but is a personal possession, a personal choice and right. The City explains that the Act, which grants the right of an owner of a property the right to appeal, contains no statutory provisions which provide for a circumstance in which an appeal is “tied to the land,” and that had the Province wished for that to be the case it would have provided such a mechanism in the legislation.

The City explains that only decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the permitted use of the property are “tied to the land” or “run with the land” and would be In rem (acts against property) jurisdiction. As opposed to an owner’s decision to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal, which would be In personam (acts against a person). Tribunal decisions are In rem because they determined the permitted land uses which apply to the land. Tribunal decisions are implemented through the processes that are to be followed under the Act and the Municipal Act, which result in a By-law applying to land. There are no such processes in the legislation to implement appeals to the Tribunal because appeals are In personam.

The City also pointed out the public benefit to dismissing the appeal, which is it would bring the City one step closer to completing the appeal process that had been ongoing for 5 years.

Abuse of Discretion in Not Dismissing the Appeal

The City suggests that the Tribunal abused its discretion in not dismissing the Wilson appeal. The City explained that allowing the appeal to continue, when the appellant has refused to engage in the proceedings or raised any merits of his appeal, is not just,

expeditious, nor cost-effective. The refusal to dismiss the appeal did not result in an expeditious resolution of the appeal, rather an unnecessary increased cost and uncertainty for the City. The City also claims it sends a message to appellants that they need not engage in the Tribunal’s process, and even if an appellant no longer wants to pursue its appeal, the Tribunal will not dismiss it, notwithstanding a properly brought motion.

Abuse of Discretion in Requiring the City to Contact an Alleged New Owner

The City claims that it was an abuse of the Tribunal’s discretion to order the City to contact the new owner of the property to advise of the Tribunal’s proceeding. The City claims that this order places an “extraordinary and inappropriate burden” on the City that is not supported by the Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, or the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The City acknowledges s.9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that the Tribunal has the authority to make orders or give directions as may be necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal.

The City explained it would need to conduct a title search to determine the new owner and, it would need to prepare materials and provide them to the new owner. This would result in an unfair and inappropriate burden upon the finances and resources of the City and in turn, the ratepayers which fund the City’s operations.

The City was also concerned with the precedent this decision could create.

Disposition

Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules sets out the process to review a decision or order. Having carefully reviewed the Decision and the content of the Request, I have determined that the exercise of my discretion under Rule 25.6(c)(ii) is warranted.

Legal Error

Based on the submissions of the City relating to the Member’s findings that the appeal was “tied to the land” was an error of law, I am convinced that the Tribunal made an error of law such that the Tribunal likely would have reached a different decision.

An appeal of a decision of an approval authority to the Tribunal is not an automatic function of an approval authority’s decision, but must be intentionally exercised by the appellant. Appellants also reserve the right to withdraw their appeal should they so choose. The Tribunal may refuse a withdrawal, but these are in very rare circumstances. For the most part, if an appellant no longer wishes to maintain the appeal, or they are no longer the owner of the subject property, they may withdraw their appeal.

Sometimes, when the sale of the subject property occurs, the new owner may seek a transfer of party status and maintain the appeal. In this case, this is not what occurred. At no time has the new owner made themselves known or expressed an interest in substituting as the appellant.

I agree with the City’s position that the Tribunal’s suggestion that the appeal is “tied to the land” does not seem to have been the intention of the Legislature when drafting the Act. If the Province had wished for that to be the case, it could have created such a mechanism within the legislation. I also agree with the City that the Tribunal’s decision regarding the permitted use of the land is tied to the land and supersedes a sale, but the decision to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal rests with the appellant. I follow and agree with the City’s line of reasoning that there exists processes to implement Tribunal decisions under the Act, which result in by-laws which apply to the land, but there is no such process for appeals, demonstrating that the intention of the legislature was not have appeals be In rem.

Based on the submissions of the City, a convincing and compelling case has been made that an error of law occurred, such that the Tribunal would have likely reached a different decision. As I have determined there may have been an error on this ground, there is no need to consider the remaining grounds.

Rule 25.6(c)(ii)

To address this error, I feel it is appropriate to utilize my powers pursuant to Rule 25.6(c)(ii) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to vary the decision in the following manner:

Remove paragraphs 31 and 32 from the Decision,
Amend the Order of the Tribunal to remove “b) the City shall contact the new owner(s) of 2070 and 2078 Queensway Drive regarding Appeal as directed above;” and replace it with “Appeal No. 20, filed by Brad Wilson is dismissed without a hearing on the merits;”

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, I find that the Request raises a compelling and convincing case that one of the grounds enumerated under Rule 25 is present in the Decision. I, therefore, grant this Request, and vary the Decision in the manner described above. My order to implement this disposition is attached.

Yours truly,

Michael Kraljevic, Chair

Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: March 31, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-002219

(Formerly PL210040) OLT-22-002483

(Formerly PL200150)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant

1602211 Ontario Ltd.

Appellant

1820473 Ontario Inc. Molinaro Group of Companies

Appellant

2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. Et Al

Appellant

2584979 Ontario Inc.; and others

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment for Burlington New Official Plan

Property Address:

All lands within the City of Burlington

Municipality/UT:

Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-002219

Legacy Case No:

PL210040

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-002219

Legacy Lead Case No:

PL210040

OLT Case Name:

1085 Clearview Limited Partnership v. Halton (Reg. Mun)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant:

2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd.. Et Al

Appellant:

440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd.

Appellant:

850 Brant Street Properties Inc.

Appellant:

Adi Development Group Inc.; and others

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 119

Reference Number:

OPA 119

Municipality/UT:

Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-002483

Legacy Case No:

PL200150

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-002483

Legacy Lead Case No:

PL200150

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant:

2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. Et Al

Appellant:

440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd.

Appellant:

850 Brant Street Properties Inc.

Appellant:

Adi Development Group Inc.; and others

Subject:

Zoning By-law

Description:

By-law No. 2020.418

Reference Number:

BL 2020.418

Municipality/UT:

Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-002484

Legacy Case No:

PL200151

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-002483

Legacy Lead Case No:

PL200150

BEFORE:

Tuesday, the 31st

MICHAEL KRALJEVIC

CHAIR

day of March, 2026

THIS IS A MATTER of the appeals filed by 1602211 Ontario Ltd, 1820473 Ontario Inc. Molinaro Group of Companies, 2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. Et al, 2584979 Ontario Inc.; and others (together the “Appellants”), under subsection 17(36), 17(24), and 34(19), against and related to the Regional Municipality of Halton’s approval of the new City of Burlington (“City”) Official Plan.

AND WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL on a motion to dismiss without a hearing by the City,

issued its Decision on November 24, 2025.

AND WHEREAS the City filed a request for review (“Request”), pursuant to s. 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 and Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), that seeks to review and reconsider the Decision;

AND WHEREAS THE CHAIR after having reviewed the Request, determined that the Request meets the threshold established under Rule 25.6(c) to warrant an exercise of his discretion to grant the request for review and rescind or vary the Decision for the reasons set out in his letter of disposition dated March 31, 2026.

ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HEREBY ORDERS that:

The Decision issued on November 24, 2025 is hereby varied in the following ways:

a. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Decision are removed, and

b. The Order is amended by replacing “b) the City shall contact the new owner(s) of 2070 and 2078 Queensway Drive regarding Appeal as directed above;” with “b) Appeal No. 20, filed by Brad Wilson is dismissed without a hearing on the merits.”

All of which are ordered pursuant to my authority under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 and Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

“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.

1085 Clearview Limited Partnership v. Halton (Reg. Mun), 2026 CanLII 30954

Case Summary

Narmada Gunawardana Shelley Kaufman

Background

The Request

Disposition

CONCLUSION

Yours truly,

Ontario Land Tribunal

ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HEREBY ORDERS that:

Ontario Land Tribunal