Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000872

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: L-2023-009 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000872 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872 OLT Case Name: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation v. Kincardine (Municipality)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: Z-2023-032 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000874 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: S-2024-012 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000908 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872

Heard: March 6, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation (“Applicant”)	P. DeMelo
Municipality of Kincardine (“Municipality”)	D. McNab*
County of Bruce (“County”)	J. Van Dorp*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON MARCH 6, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant seeks to develop a site municipally known as 1494 Highway 21, Kincardine (“Subject Property”) to construct 322 dwelling units, including a mix of townhouses, semi-detached dwellings and apartment units. To this end, the Applicant filed an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”). The Appeals are brought pursuant to sections 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), due to the Municipality’s failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframes.

2On March 6. 2026, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the appeal, address status requests and establish next steps in this proceeding.

NOTICE

3There were no issues raised with service of Notice of the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC affirmed on February 20, 2026, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to this CMC.

STATUS REQUEST

4The Tribunal received one request for Party Status from the County of Bruce. The County’s planning staff processes applications for development for the Municipality. It is the approval authority for the OPA and the DPS, but not the ZBA. The County submitted that it could help the Tribunal resolve the issues raised in the Appeals. Given sections 17(44.2) (2) and 34(24.2) (2) of the Act, as well as section 12 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, S.O. 2021, c. 4, the Tribunal directed that both the County of Bruce and the Municipality of Kincardine be considered Parties to these Appeals.

5The Tribunal was also in receipt of two requests for Participant status from Andrew Stiver and Saugeen First Nation/Chippewas of Nawash First Nation. The two first Nations act in concert in these matters through a joint Environmental Office. The Applicant, the Municipality and the County did not object to granting Participant status. The Tribunal directed that Andrew Stiver and Saugeen First Nation/Chippewas of Nawash First Nation (Environmental Office) be granted Participant status.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

6Counsel for the Parties advised that they are aware of Tribunal assisted mediation.

7The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal, as soon as possible, of any settlement, and are encouraged to narrow the issues.

NEXT STEPS

8A draft Procedural Order was not provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal prior to the CMC. However, the Parties submitted that the Tribunal should set a date for a four-day Hearing. The Tribunal directed that a four-day Hearing be scheduled to proceed by video at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. The Parties undertook to file with the Tribunal by Friday, March 13, 2026 a draft Procedural Order, including an Issues List. Disappointingly, they did not file the draft Procedural Order until Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and they did so without explanation or apology.

9Individuals are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before the it begins to test their video and audio connections.

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

10Individuals 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.

11Individuals 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: 558-205-565.

12Individuals 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.

13As 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. A paragraph to this effect has been added to the Procedural Order.

ORDER

14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

a. The directions in this Decision; and,

b. The Procedural Order, Attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved.

“Jean-Pierre Blais”

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS

VIce-Chair

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 A

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: L-2023-009 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000872 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872 OLT Case Name: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation v. Kincardine (Municipality)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: Z-2023-032 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000874 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: to facilitate the development of a 322-unit residential plan of subdivision Reference Number: S-2024-012 Property Address: 1494 Highway 21 Municipality/UT: Municipality of Kincardine OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000908 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000872

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to this Order at any time either on request or as it sees fit. It may amend this Order by an oral ruling or by another written Order.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will commence on Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 4 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants (see Attachment 1 for the meaning of these terms) are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Except for scoping or removing issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as listed 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 consent 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 and 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. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing (different than initially applied for with the municipality), the Applicant/Appellant shall provide details of the revised proposal, including revised plans and drawings, draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and supporting materials to the other parties on or before Friday, April 17, 2026 unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the Applicant/Appellant provides a revised proposal, the other parties shall have the right to revise their Issues Lists. Subject to reasonable notice to the other parties, revisions to the proposal which seek to settle or narrow issues, after this date, are also permitted.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, the other parties and to the City Clerk a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered by Friday, May 15, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Friday, May 22, 2026

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, June 12, 2026, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting each group of witnesses in the same field shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues identifying areas of agreement, dispute and the Issues that will be addressed at the hearing. All documents exchanged and discussions held between expert witnesses are on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues which becomes part of the record when it has been signed by the experts. The Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues will be filed with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, July 10, 2026.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an Expert Witness Statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of an Expert 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.

13. 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 and his or her area of expertise, as in item 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 14 below.

14. On or before Friday, August 14, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their Witness and/or Expert Witness Statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Friday, August 14, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Friday, September 11, 2026 , the parties shall provide copies of Reply Witness Statements, if any, to the other parties and the OLT case-co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Monday, September 28, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, September 28, 2026. The Document Book will be electronic in format and include page numbering and electronic tabs. Any party wishing to have a hard copy will be responsible for printing its own copy. While the Applicant/Appellant will prepare the Joint Document Book, each party is required to send the Applicant/Appellant those document which are unique to their Witness Statements and Reply Witness Statements and which the Applicant/Appellant would thus not otherwise have in its possession.

19. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness may be password protected and only become accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such documents shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties in advance of their intended use.

20. 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.

21. A party who provides the written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have that witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Tribunal and the parties are notified at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, October 2, 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.

23. All filings shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic filing 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.

24. 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.

25. A summary of the various filing dates is contained in Attachment 5.

26. A party, participant, or witness who intends to submit document(s) to the Tribunal must include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content. A declaration is not required if AI was used to merely suggest changes, provide recommendations, or critique content already created by a human who then considered and manually implemented the changes.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Meaning of Terms used in the Procedural Order

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (“CMC”), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that eb found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues;; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A Summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agree to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 2

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation Paul DeMelo Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON., M5R 2J1 Tel: 416.368.2100 x 228 pdemelo@ksllp.ca

2. Municipality of Kincardine Amberly Weber 1475 Concession 5, RR#5 Kincardine, ON., N2Z 2X6 Tel: 519-396-3468 x 7129 aweber@kincardine.ca

3. Corporation of the County of Bruce Jack Van Dorp 30 Park St. P.O Box 70 Walkerton, ON., N0G 2VO Tel: 226- 909- 1601 / 1-226-909- 6305 jvandorp@brucecounty.on.ca

Participants

4. Saugeen Ojibway Nation acting on behalf of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen First Nation Natalie Kuipers Tel: 705- 798-3298 gis@saugeenojibwaynation.ca

5. Andrew Stiver Tel: 647- 858- 4757 andrewstiver@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note 1: The identification of an issue on this Issues List does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant may be further scoped or resolved by the parties before the hearing and/or be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Municipality of Kincardine/ Corporation of the County of Bruce Issues

1. Does the development proposal consisting of proposed Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the subject lands (collectively the “development proposal”) have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the matters set out in sections 2(a), 2(d), 2(f), 2(h), 2(h.1), 2(i), 2(n), 2(p), 2(q) and 2(r) therein?

2. Is the development proposal consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (the “PPS”), in particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections:

• 2.1.6 (Planning for People and Homes)
• 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (Transportation Systems)
• 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 (Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors)
• 3.9.1 (Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space)
• 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 (Natural Heritage)
• 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 (Water)
• 4.6.2 and 4.6.5 (Cultural Heritage and Archaeology)
• 6.1.2 (General Policies for Implementation and Interpretation)
• 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.7 (Coordination)

3. Does the development proposal conform with the policies in the County of Bruce Official Plan, in particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections:

• 3.0 (Vision, Goals and Objectives) o 3.2.2 (Vision) o 3.4.1 (County Goals)
• 4.2 (General Objectives)
• 4.3 (The Environment) o 4.3.1 (Objectives) o 4.3.2 (General Policies) o 4.3.3 (Requirements for Environmental Impact Studies)
• 4.4 (Population and Housing) o 4.4.4.1.1 v) (General Housing Policies)
• 4.6 (Transportation) o 4.6.1 i), ii) and viii) (Objectives) o 4.6.2.1, 4.6.2.2, 4.6.2.3, 4.6.2.4 and 4.6.2.5 (General Policies) o 4.6.3.4 (Provincial Highways) o 4.6.5.2 (Recreational Trails)
• 4.10 (Heritage) o 4.10.1.1, 4.10.1.2, 4.10.1.4 (Objectives)
• 4.11 ii) and iii) (Energy Conservation and Development)
• 6.2 (Indigenous Communities)
• 6.24 (County-Approved Planning Applications) o 6.24.4.1, 6.24.4.4, 6.24.4.5, 6.24.4.6, 6.24.4.7 and 6.24.4.9 (Development Applications)
• 6.26 (Other Information to be Submitted in Support of a Planning Application) o 6.26.1, 6.26.3, 6.26.4, 6.26.5, 6.26.6 and 6.26.7 (Other Information to be Submitted in Support of a Planning Application)

4. Does the development proposal conform with the policies in the Municipality of Kincardine Official Plan, in particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections:

• C1 (General Land Use) o C1.1 (Goal) o C1.2 (Objectives) o C1.3.1, C1.3.4, C1.3.5 and C1.3.6 (Policies)
• C2 (Environment) o C2.1 (Goal) o C2.2 (Objectives) o C2.3 (Policies)
• C3 (Cultural Heritage & Archaeology) o C3.1 (Goal) o C3.2.2 (Objectives) o C3.3.1, C3.3.2, C3.3.6, C3.3.7 and C3.3.8 (Policies)
• C4 (Energy Conservation & Climate Change) o C4.1 (Goal) o C4.2.2 (Objectives) o C4.3.3 and C4.3.4 (Policies)
• D1 (Residential) o D1.1 (Goal) o D1.2.1, D1.2.2 and D1.2.4 (Objectives) o D1.3 (Permitted Uses) o D1.5.1 and D1.5.2 (Medium and High Density Housing)
• D2 (Commercial) o D2.1 (Goal) o D2.2.1, D2.2.5 and D2.2.8 (Objectives) o D2.3 (Permitted Uses) o D2.4 (General Policies) o D2.7 (Mixed Used Policies) o D2.9 (Local Commercial Policies)
• D6 (Open Space) o D6.1 (Goal) o D6.2.1 (Objectives) o D6.3 (Permitted Uses) o D6.4.1, D6.4.2, D6.4.3, D6.4.4, D6.4.5 and D6.4.9 (Policies)
• D7 (Natural Environment Areas) o D7.1 (Goal) o D7.2 (Objectives) o D7.3 (General Principles) o D7.4 (Permitted Uses) o D7.5 (Policies) o D7.6 (Environmental Impact Study) o D7.7 (Adjacent Lands)
• F (Transportation) o F1 (Goal) o F2.1, F2.3 and F2.4 (Objectives) o F3.1 (Provincial Highways) o F3.5 (Land Acquisition) o F4.2 (Roads) o F4.3 (Pedestrian)
• G (Land Division Policies) o G2.1 and G2.3 (Policies)
• H (Implementation) o H1 (Zoning By-law) o H9.1 (Amendment and Review) o H13 (Other Information to be Submitted in Support of a Planning Application)

5. Have all materials prepared in support of the development proposal been provided to the Tribunal, approval authorities, agencies and the public that would be needed to render comments and/or a decision (e.g., Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment)?

6. Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed road access to Highway 21 can operate safely and efficiently, given that it is the sole vehicular access to the development proposal? Can any negative impacts be appropriately avoided/mitigated through design revisions and/or conditions of draft approval?

7. Will the proximity of the proposed internal intersection to Highway 21 result in unacceptable operational/safety impacts, including the risk of vehicle queuing onto the provincial highway? Can those impacts be appropriately avoided/mitigated through design revisions and/or conditions of draft approval?

8. Has the development proposal adequately addressed the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s concerns regarding the scope and methodology of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, including the change in archaeological consultant? Has the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment been completed and submitted to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism in accordance with their standards? Have the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological assessments been accepted into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports? Are the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archeological Assessments sufficient to support approval of the applications or is further assessment required? Is a Holding provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment and/or a condition of draft approval appropriate to address outstanding issues relating to the archaeological potential?

9. Is there sufficient information and agency input on natural heritage and hydrogeological matters, including the Saugeen Ojibway Nations’s interests, to determine whether the development proposal appropriately addresses potential impacts? Can those impacts be appropriately avoided/mitigated through design revisions and/or conditions of draft approval?

10. Should the development proposal be amended to provide parkland, or a combination of parkland and cash-in lieu of parkland, in a location and configuration that adequately serves the needs of the community and addresses design, installation, operational and other requirements of the Municipality of Kincardine? Can conditions of draft approval address the provision of parkland and/or cash-in-lieu?

11. Should the development proposal include multi-use trails / active transportation connections that are functional, safe and accessible and that integrate the site with the existing and planned active transportation network and the broader community? Can conditions of draft approval address the provision of multi-use trails / active transportation connections?

12. Is the proposed Local Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the tablelands from Future Development to Residential appropriate, particularly in relation to the mix of residential and commercial uses proposed on Block 14 adjacent Highway 21? Would a Mixed Use designation that allows for a broader range of commercial uses than the Residential designation be more appropriate in that location to serve the development proposal and broader community?

13. Should the Local Official Plan Amendment include an exception that removes the maximum density of 95 units per hectare for proposed high density development?

14. Should the Local Official Plan Amendment include the entirety of the subject lands, including those lands in a Natural Environment designation? If so, should the Natural Environment designation include an exception that allows for landform modifications for permitted uses such as infrastructure, public parks and passive outdoor recreation (e.g., trails) subject to the approval of the Municipality, County of Bruce, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, and other agencies where required?

15. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment reflect the comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Municipality of Kincardine, being By-law No. 2025-052, which was adopted on April 23, 2025?

16. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone Block 14 from Planned Development (PD) to Residential Four (R4) appropriate, particularly in relation to the mix of residential and commercial uses proposed on Block 14 adjacent Highway 21? Would a Mixed Use (C8) zone that allows for a broader range of commercial uses than the Residential Four (R4) zone be more appropriate in that location to serve the development proposal and broader community?

17. Should the proposed stormwater management facility be zoned Open Space (OS) instead of a Residential (R3 or R4) or Environmental Protection (EP1 or EP2) zone?

18. In the event that the Tribunal approves the proposed Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, in principle, should the final order(s) respecting the Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be withheld until such time as the County and Municipality advise the Tribunal that the Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have been finalized to the satisfaction of the County of Bruce and Municipality of Kincardine?

19. Should the Draft Plan of Subdivision be revised to include the entirety of the subject lands, with the natural environment lands shown as separate blocks that would be conveyed to the Municipality of Kincardine as a condition of draft approval?

20. Does the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard for the subdivision criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act?

21. In the event that the Tribunal approves the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, what are the appropriate conditions of draft approval?

22. Do the instruments to be considered by the Tribunal reflect the submitted comments of agencies and interest holders and issues identified?

23. Does the development proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation
2. Municipality of Kincardine & Corporation of the County of Bruce
3. Bremont (Kincardine) Corporation (in reply)

ATTACHMENT 5

Summary of Filing Dates

EVENT	DATE
1st Case Management Conference	Friday, March 6, 2026
Applicant’s deadline to revise development	Friday, April 17, 2026
Parties to exchange their List of Witnesses	Friday, May 15, 2026
Parties to Challenge Witness	Friday, May 22, 2026
Deadline for Expert Meeting	Friday, June 12, 2026
Parties to file statement of Agreed Facts and Issues	Friday, July 10, 2026
Parties to exchange their Witness and Expert Witness Statements Participants to provide their Participant Statements	Friday, August 14, 2026
Parties to exchange their Reply Witness Statements	Friday, September 11, 2026
Parties to File Joint Document Book	Monday, September 28, 2026
Parties to exchange their Visual Evidence	Monday, September 28, 2026
Parties to File Preliminary Hearing Plan	Friday, October 2, 2026
Hearing commences	Tuesday, October 13, 2026