Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 12, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001069

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

Applicant and Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

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

Description: To permit the designation and zoning of the Subject Lands for residential development with a townhouse block.

Reference Number: OP-01-24

Property Address: 501 Shellard Lane

Municipality: Brantford

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001069

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001069

OLT Case Name: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. v. Brantford (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

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

Description: To permit the designation and zoning of the Subject Lands for residential development with a townhouse block.

Reference Number: PZ-13-24

Property Address: 501 Shellard Lane

Municipality: Brantford

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001070

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001069

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

Applicant and Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the designation and zoning of the Subject Lands for residential development with a townhouse block.

Reference Number: 29T-16502

Property Address: 501 Shellard Lane

Municipality: Brantford

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001071

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001069

Heard: December 1 to 5, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

Jessica De Marinis Jennifer Meader (in absentia)

City of Brantford

Brian Duxbury

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION delivered BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON December 5, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal was scheduled as a Phase 1 Hearing relating to appeals pursuant to sections 22(7), 34(11), and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) as the result of the City of Brantford (“City”) failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), and the refusal or neglect to make a decision including a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications, (together, the “Applications” / “Appeals”).

2The Appeals were submitted by Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. (“Appellant”) for the municipal address known as 501 Shellard Lane (“Subject Lands”).

3The Applications relate to a Site Specific proposal that is seeking: a multiple dwelling-block approval, containing a total of 123 residential units with a mix of two-storey, three-storey, back-to-back townhouse dwellings, and some single-detached homes along Blackburn Lane; a maximum lot coverage of approximately 7532.4 square metres (“m²”); a landscaped area of 6741.6 m²; and a hard surface area of 7311.9 m² (“Proposal”).

4The Applications are also seeking to re-designate the Subject Lands to “Residential”, proposing the rezoning change to a “Site Specific Residential Medium Density Type A (RFA- xx) Zone and to a Residential Type 1D, Exception 6 (R1D-6) Zone”. The previously approved Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) is proposed to be modified through this DPS, which will implement the requested OPA designations as part of the Appeals to facilitate the proposed development.

5As highlighted below, a previous Case Management Conference (“CMC”) Decision (February 12, 2025) established that the focus of this Phase 1 Hearing was intended to determine the “threshold” question of the future developability of the Subject Lands. The Parties further confirmed at the CMC and in Note 2 of the Issues List on consent that:

The purpose of Phase 1 of the hearing is to determine whether a portion of the subject lands are appropriately designated Core Natural Area in the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Phase 1 will determine whether any portion of the lands currently designated Core Natural Area should be designated Residential, and if so the extent to which the subject lands should be designated Residential in both the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In order to assess this issue, which will be detailed through the Issues List, both parties anticipate calling witnesses to give expert evidence in the following disciplines: hydrology, ecology, land use planning, and engineering.

6Following the CMC Decision, a subsequent Motion for Production Decision, was issued on April 17, 2025, which required the City to produce a Skelton Brumwell Supplemental Report from September/October 2024 (“SB Supplemental Report”). An Issues List was finally submitted and approved by the Tribunal on July 9, 2025, which was intended to guide the Phase 1 Hearing.

7Once determined that any “threshold” issues have been resolved, a subsequent Phase 2 Hearing, if required, would then be set down by the Tribunal to determine remaining issues, including but not limited to land use planning and built-form issues arising from the Proposal.

8The matter commenced as a five-day, Phase 1 Hearing. However, on day one (December 1, 2025), Parties advised that a proposed settlement (“Settlement”) was under consideration between the Parties. The Tribunal directed that it would stand down, temporarily, while these final negotiations between the Parties proceeded.

9The Tribunal reconvened on December 3, 2025 for an update and was advised that a formal Settlement was near completion, related to the OPA initially, followed by a further Settlement of the remaining ZBA and DPS to be submitted before the Tribunal in the spring of 2026.

10On Friday December 5, 2025, the Tribunal was presented with the Settlement details and, following careful consideration of issues primarily related to the OPA, the Tribunal determined that all “threshold” issues related to the OPA were properly considered and determined that the Subject Lands are developable.

11The Tribunal provided its oral Decision which determined that the OPA appeal should be allowed, and hereby approved, with details outlined below in this Decision. A further Tribunal Hearing of the Settlement, based on an outline of the principle issues in the Attachment below relating to the ZBA and DPS, was also set down to commence on Wednesday, March 25, 2026.

SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT LIST

12The following Exhibits were confirmed at the commencement of the Tribunal’s consideration of the Settlement, as proposed:

1. Evidence Outline – David Aston – (December 5, 2025);

2. Witness Statement – David Aston (October 2, 2025);

3. Applicant – Visual Evidence (October 31, 2025);

4. Reply Witness Statement – David Aston (November 3, 2025)

5. Witness Statement – Bo Lam (October 3, 2025); and,

6. Witness Statement – Jayme D. Campbell (October 2, 2025).

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

13In determining the outcome of the Appeals through this Settlement, and based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal: must have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and to any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority received in relation to the matter; in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act; and, that under s. 3(5) of the Act, further requires that any Decisions of the Tribunal must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”), conform with any provincial plans, and have regard to

relevant policies and guidelines that are in effect.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

14On consent of the Parties, the only witness present was David Aston, who was properly qualified to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence. Mr. Aston has been engaged with the Appellant since June 2015 and provided a “high-level” overview of the Proposal and Settlement, with detailed evidence in Exhibit 2 through Exhibit 6.

15Mr. Aston noted certain characteristics of the Subject Lands and the general evolution of the Proposal within the context of the surrounding area, and generally summarized the agreement between the Parties noting the following:

a) The OPA determination at this Phase 1 Hearing was the primary issue before the Tribunal;

b) The anticipated ZBA and DPS modifications, as required and subject to the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration of the OPA component of the Settlement, would more appropriately be dealt with at a further Settlement Hearing, as noted above;

c) The Parties were in agreement that the Subject Lands:

1. Are within a Settlement Area and Designated Greenfield Area in the City of Brantford Official Plan (“COP”); and,

2. Are designated Core Natural Area and not designated Parks & Open Space, and furthermore not designated as park, open space, trail, or linkage; however, is identified as part of the Greenlands System and for Environmental Protection by the West of Conklin Secondary Plan.

16Mr. Aston further relied on the Witness Statement of Mr. Lam (Exhibit 5) who assumed the Project Manager role, on behalf of Dillon, beginning in November 2023 and noted that he was directly involved with the Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), the Addendum Memo (“EIS Addendum”) dated March 15, 2024, and subsequent updates.

17Mr. Lam references his direct involvement with the Wetland re-evaluation of the Subject Lands through Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”) and Grand River Conservation Authority (“GRCA”), permit renewal policies. This process also included an Arborist Report Addendum and Tree Protection Plan, all of which were tied directly to an Existing Conditions Report (“ECR-2025”).

18Mr. Lam’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 3), in more extensive detail, expresses his opinion including, but not limited to, the following summary:

• The existing Wetland, as defined in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (“OWES”), is surrounded by a Cultural Meadow (“CUM”) community which maintained a dominant vegetation species consisting of substrate type and moisture regime;

• As part of a Common Reed Graminoid Mineral Marsh (“MAMM1-12”) community, the Subject Lands experience seasonal flooding with summer drawdown, and maintains a plant species cover of 50% of the total cover;

• The Subject Lands provide limited ecological function, containing invasive species, and are isolated from any surrounding Natural Heritage (“NH”) network;

• Asserted that the Subject Lands did not meet the criteria for Significant Wildlife Habitat (“SWH”);

• There is “no negative impact” regarding species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and therefore, Issue 7 (rare, protected or endangered species) is a matter the experts agree on as appropriately mitigated; and

• Reiterated that it was not Provincially Significant Wetland in accordance with the conclusions of the Dillon Study, dated August 22, 2025 (Exhibit 3, Attachment B, pg. 41/85) (“Dillon Study”).

19The Tribunal also noted that Mr. Lam further details the Subject Lands history resulting in the approval of the Wetland’s removal commencing March 2021 by the GRCA and further renewed in December 2023 (Exhibit 3, pg.5).

20Mr. Aston, therefore, concluded that the Settlement has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, including:

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate;

(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;

(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; and

(o) the protection of public health and safety.

21Mr. Aston also opined that further regard for s.2 of the Act will be demonstrated through the Settlement at the subsequent Hearing scheduled in March 2026, including:

(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; and,

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems.

PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024

22Mr. Aston opined that the Settlement maintains consistency with the PPS 2024 in the following areas, and through his testimony in support of the Proposal, there was a particular focus on:

Chapter 2.9 - Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change

1. Planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate through approaches that:

b) incorporate climate change considerations in planning for and the development of infrastructure, including stormwater management systems, and public service facilities;

d) promote green infrastructure, low impact development, and active transportation, protect the environment and improve air quality; and

e) take into consideration any additional approaches that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build community resilience to the impacts of a changing climate.

23Mr. Aston concludes that the Proposal represents “compact residential development in an area designated for and appropriate for growth and development”.

24Mr. Ashton further outlines through his Witness Statement that the Proposal maintains consistency with the PPS 2024, establishing support for the Settlement in the following areas of significance:

Chapter 3.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater

8. Planning for stormwater management shall:

a) be integrated with planning for sewage and water services and ensure that systems are optimized, retrofitted as appropriate, feasible and financially viable over their full life cycle;

b) minimize, or, where possible, prevent or reduce increases in stormwater volumes and contaminant loads;

c) minimize erosion and changes in water balance including through the use of green infrastructure;

d) mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment;

e) maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces;

f) promote best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development; and

g) align with any comprehensive municipal plans for stormwater management that consider cumulative impacts of stormwater from development on a watershed scale.

3.9 Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space

1. Healthy, active, and inclusive communities should be promoted by:

a) planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of persons of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

b) planning and providing for the needs of persons of all ages and abilities in the distribution of a full range of publicly-accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails and linkages, and, where practical, water-based resources;

d) recognizing provincial parks, conservation reserves, and other protected areas, and minimizing negative impacts on these areas.

25Mr. Ashton further opined that regarding the important area respecting Natural Heritage and Water, the Proposal maintains consistency with the PPS 2024 in the following respect:

Chapter 4.1 Natural Heritage

1. Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

2. The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

3. Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E¹, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.

4. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E¹.

5. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

d) significant wildlife habitat; and

e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest.

8. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5, and 4.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

26Mr. Ashton reiterated the opinions of Mr. Lam, as noted previously, and expanded on the inapplicability of terms such as “locally significant wetland” and “locally significant natural heritage feature” which may be used in the COP, absent any definitions, and therefore, should not be applicable when determining consistency with the PPS.

27Finally, regarding the PPS 2024 s. 4.2 – Water, Mr. Aston relies on the Witness Statement of Mr. Campbell (Exhibit 6), whereby he asserts that consistency with the PPS 2024 is also maintained specific to:

• Watershed planning to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water;

• Concerning the COP, “Aquifers and Groundwater Recharge Areas” are not identified within the Subject Lands as being of any significance for recharging or vulnerability; and,

• There is no threat to drinking water, and the anticipated further Phase 2 Hearing will be provided with a water balance analysis, along with a stormwater management plan, and any mitigation measures anticipated.

CITY OFFICIAL PLAN

28As previously noted in the above background, the Subject Lands’ current designations were not in contention, but that the OPA redesignation to Neighbourhoods and Residential will allow for a range of dwelling types and is supported by the EIS.

29Mr. Aston summarized his opinion regarding the Proposal’s conformity with the COP, generally as follows:

a) The criteria expectations related to climate change are established and fulfilled;

b) The built form represents a compact design, with density supportive of transit expansion, resulting in reduced vehicular demand;

c) Stormwater/groundwater management practices, hydrologic and hydrogeologic impact measures are in place that will have a mitigating impact, and in some instances represent improved conditions;

d) Tree protection/preservation and removal/management are properly addressed in the Dillon Study (noted above), that satisfy COP objectives;

e) The Settlement amends the COP (Exhibit 1, pg.15) and is outlined further regarding: Natural Heritage and changes to the Core Natural Area designation; City Utilities, Infrastructure, and Transportation Systems; and,

f) Further clarification will follow in the Phase 2 Settlement Hearing relating to urban design, conveyancing of land, servicing, transportation, and any other land use issues.

HEARING

30The one-day Phase 2 Settlement Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 10 a.m.

31Parties 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/909787981

Access code: 909-787-981

32Parties 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

33Persons 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) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 909-787-981.

34Individuals 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.

PARTICIPANT ISSUES

35Mr. Aston further opined that the concern regarding the “critical removal of wetland” was unfounded, and the Parties agreed that through the EIS conclusions, and those of the Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASOF”) between the Parties, this is not the case.

36Furthermore, there were no floodplain concerns, and issues related to stormwater management, tree preservation/management, and any other concerns will be more properly addressed during the Phase 2 Settlement Hearing.

37The ZBA and DPS process is expected to also address the frontage of the Proposal, ponding, and creek dynamics, as well as having noted that the school block will be outside of any sensitive natural features.

38Furthermore, it is anticipated that a request for pre-application regarding a pending Site Plan will be fulfilled, addressing these and any other issues at the appropriate juncture.

39Finally, in concluding submissions, the Tribunal was asked to determine that the matter has resolved the Phase 1 Hearing issues and the Parties agreed that the Settlement:

a) Has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act;

b) Maintains consistency with the PPS 2024;

c) Conforms with the COP, noting that the Subject Lands, in line with the ASOF, are not:

• Provincially significant wetlands;

• Provincially significant woodlands;

• Provincially significant valleylands;

• Significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and,

• Hazard lands (including steep slopes or floodplains).

40Mr. Aston reiterated that any and all Participant issues have been properly addressed in this Settlement, as it relates to Natural Heritage issues, and recommended the Tribunal should conclude the same.

41Finally, Mr. Aston advised that the Consolidated Zoning By-law appeal (OLT-24-001085), is also expected to form part of the final outcome of this Settlement and will be disposed of at a later date, consistent with the agreement between the Parties.

CONCLUSIONS

42The Tribunal considered and accepted the “high-level” submissions and testimony of Mr. Aston and determined that the Settlement, as it relates to the OPA, has the appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority received in relation to the matter, in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act; and, that under s. 3(5) of the Act.

43Furthermore, the Tribunal has determined that the Proposal, as it relates to the OPA component, is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms with all provincial plans, having regard to relevant policies and guidelines that are in effect.

44Finally, the proposed principles associated with the ZBA and DPS for the Phase 2 Settlement Hearing, will also be of assistance during the Tribunal’s consideration of the ZBA and DPS in due course.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The Official Plan Amendment appeal, by Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. in the City of Brantford (“City”), is allowed, and is hereby approved as set out below in this Decision, marked as Attachment 1;

2. A further Hearing of the proposed settlement regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and the Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) appeals, respectively, by Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. in the City, are set out below in this Decision as principles to assist the Tribunal in its consideration of these matters, and is marked as Attachment 2;

3. The Tribunal hereby schedules a one-day appearance for Wednesday, March 25, 2026, as detailed in paragraph [30] to [34], for the purpose of the further Hearing proposed settlement Hearing for the ZBA, in the form of the City’s new comprehensive Zoning By-Law (OLT Lead Case No. OLT-24-001085), and the DPS and associated conditions of approval; and,

4. The Tribunal may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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

Attachment 2

Footnotes

1. 1Footnote marker inferred from text.