MacDonald & Fifield v. North Grenville, 2026 CanLII 3361

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 16, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000579

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cindy MacDonald & Gordon Fifield

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

Description: ZBA To permit establishment of a kennel on the property with reduced setbacks and lot frontage

Reference Number: ZBA-04-25

Property Address: 2984 County Road 20

Municipality/UT: North Grenville/ Leeds and Grenville

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000579

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000579

OLT Case Name: MacDonald & Fifield v. North Grenville

Heard: November 20, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Cindy MacDonald and Gordon Fifield

Jenna Khoury Hanna

Township of North Grenville

Spencer Putman

Randy Olmstead

Self-represented*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI ON november 20, 2025 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. Cindy MacDonald and Gordon Fifield (“Applicants”) have filed an appeal against the Township of North Grenville (“Township”) decision to refuse a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“Application”) pursuant to s. 34(11), of the Planning Act (“Act”). The lands are municipally known as 2984 County Road 20, in the Township (“Subject Property”).

2The Application under appeal relates to the development of a dog kennel on the Subject Property with reduced setbacks and lot frontage.

3Of note, the appearance of November 20, 2025 was initially scheduled as a two day Merit Hearing. Due to the number of Status Requests filed in advance of the Hearing, as will be discussed below, the Parties requested that the Hearing be converted to a CMC in order to deal with the Status Requests, file a Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List and proceed to a Hearing scheduled in the future. Additionally, there were no issues identified with the Tribunal Notice dated October 10, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1) as such, no further notice is required.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

4The Tribunal received Party Status Requests from Lisa and Ross Mackay, Darcy Wither, Terry and Randy Olmstead. After the Tribunal’s explanation regarding the differences between a Party and a Participant, Lisa and Ross Mackay and Darcy Wither requested to change their Status Request from Party to Participant. Counsels for the Applicant and Township agreed to the requests and the Tribunal granted the change in Status Request.

5Terry and Randy Olmsted are the adjacent property owners and operate Fairstead Stables, an Equine training facility, on their property. Mr. Olmstead expressed concerns regarding the establishment of a dog kennel next to the business, including adverse impacts such a noise and distractions to the training facility. He also expressed concerns regarding reduced setbacks (for example, side buffer to the neighbour) and the impact of reduced frontage. He advised that he intended to call a number of witnesses to support his position, as will be discussed further below in this decision.

6Counsel for the Applicant questioned Mr. Olmstead’s rights to be included as a Party. She noted that there were legislative changes to s. 34(19) in 2024 which restricted appeal rights to specified persons and excluded general members of the public, such as neighbouring landowners, from being allowed to appeal a zoning by-law amendment. As such, Counsel of the Applicant proposed that Mr. Olmstead would not have standing to participate in this appeal.

7Counsel for the Township submitted that Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedures addresses who can be added as a Party. Further, the applicable test can be found in s. 34 (24.1) and s. 34 (24.2) of the Act. In sum, he stated that recent Tribunal decisions have ruled that those sections mean that a person can be added as a Party if they made previous oral or written submissions to Council, or the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to add them as a Party. Counsel for the Township also noted that Mr. Olmstead provided written submissions on April 7, 2025.

8After hearing and considering all of the submissions, the Tribunal granted Party Status to Mr. Olmstead because his presence and anticipated evidence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and assist in rendering its decision in the Merit Hearing. Of note, Terry Ramstead had requested she be included as a Party since she was the Partner of Randy Omstead and therefore Party Status should be granted “automatically”. The Tribunal explained that there is no automatic right to Party Status. The Tribunal is required to make a ruling after hearing the requested individual’s interests. After the explanation, Terry Ramstead withdrew her request since her concerns would be expressed via Randy Olmstead.

9Regarding Participant Status request, the following individuals requested to Participate in the Hearing: Alain Cayer, Andrea Wan Rycheghem, Sonya Vadine, Katelyn Magee, Jennifer Wubs, Paul Lyon, Tess McManus, Annie and Mike Miner Jonathan Arcand. The Participants were mainly neighbours and property owners. The concerns included noise, odor, compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and the impact of the dog kennel on the horses in the Equine training facility.

10Counsel for the Applicant submitted that she did not take issue with the above requests but noted that Jonathan Arcand’s name does not appear anywhere in the municipal record meaning that no previous submissions were made. Counsel for the Township did not oppose anyone being made a Participant and advised granting Participant status to someone who had not made prior submissions to Council was not as concerning. After considering the submissions of counsel and reviewing the participant statement of Mr. Arcand, the Tribunal grated Participant Status to all those individuals’ requesting that Status, including Mr. Arcand.

MEDIATION

11The Tribunal advised the parties regarding Mediation and that it may be an opportunity for the Parties to discuss the identified issues in a less formal manner, and or provide an opportunity to reduce issues or scope issues. The Tribunal reiterated that Tribunal-led mediation information can be obtained through the Case Coordinator. The Parties further confirmed that they will keep the Tribunal apprised of any developments with their resolution efforts which the Tribunal finds satisfactory.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

Counsel for the Applicant submitted a PO inclusive of an Issues List (“IL”) on December 22, 2025.

HEARING

12Mr. Olmstead advised that they would be producing a number of witnesses including but not limited to a carriage driving professional and previous kennel owner, president of the Ontario Carriage Association, and professional carriage driver and trainer. The Tribunal advised that some of the witnesses may provide overlapping evidence, and as such, the Tribunal recommended consideration be given to condensing the number of witnesses.

13Counsel for Applicant advised that there is a witness under summons who will be appearing at the Hearing. She intends to call a land use planner and may call one other witness given the potential issues identified by the Applicant. After some discussion, and considering the number of witnesses, the Tribunal set a (6) six-day hearing starting Monday, April 27, 2026 commencing at 10 a.m. to Tuesday, May 5, 2026. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, May 4, 2026.

14The parties were directed to advise the Tribunal well in advance if some of the Hearing dates could be released, as settlement discussions and or mediation resolve issues.

15Parties and Participants 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/344779885

Access code: 344-779-885

16Parties and 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

17Persons 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 into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (Toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above.

18Individuals 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.

ORDER

19The Tribunal Orders that:

a. Party status is granted to Randy Olmstead;

b. Participant Status is granted to Lisa and Ross Mackay, Darcy Wither, Alain Cayer, Andrea Wan Rycheghem, Sonya Vadine, Katelyn Magee, Jennifer Wubs, Paul Lyon, Tess McManus, Annie and Mike Miner, and Jonathan Arcand;

c. The Procedural Order, attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved;

d. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any issue arising from this Order.

“Yasna Faghani”

Yasna Faghani

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.

SCHEDULE A

ISSUE DATE: January 16, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000579

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

Applicants/Appellants: Cindy MacDonald & Gordon Fifield

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

Description: ZBA to permit establishment of a kennel on the property with reduced setbacks and lot frontage

Reference Number: ZBA-04-25

Property Address: 2984 County Road 20

Municipality/UT: North Grenville/Leeds and Grenville

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000579

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000579 OLT Case Name: MacDonald & Fifield v. North Grenville

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on April 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. via videoconference using the link as follows:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 6 days and shall run on the following dates: April 27-30, May 1 and May 5, 2026. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 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 the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, 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, 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 Witness Lists

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, February 6, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

Witnesses and Evidence

10. On or before Friday, February 27, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

11. On or before Friday, February 27, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

12. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days (or by Monday, March 9, 2026) after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

13. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, March 13, 2026, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing.

14. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before April 13, 2026.

15. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a 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.

16. 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 anticipated evidence as in paragraph 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 13 below.

17. Amy Martin, who was previously served a summons to appear on the original hearing date of November 20, 2025, continues to be bound by that summons and shall appear on April 27, 2026 – the first day of hearing. She is not required to be personally served again ahead of the April/May hearing dates. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to provide Amy Martin with a copy of this procedural order and its attachments via email.

Participants

18. On or before February 13, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

Procedural Matters

19. On or before Monday, March 23, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, April 17, 2026.

21. 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.

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

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, April 20, 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.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file 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.

25. 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.

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A 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. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and 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 be 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 a list of reports or materials 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 supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials 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 agreed 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 1 – PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties:

1. Cindy MacDonald & Gordon Fifield

2. The Municipality of North Grenville

3. Randy Olmstead

Participants:

1. Jonathan Arcand

2. Alain Cayer

3. Paul Lyon

4. Lisa MacKay

5. Katelyn Magee

6. Tess McManus

7. Anie and Mike Miner

8. Sonya Vandine

9. Andrea Van Ryckeghem

10. Darcy Wither

11. Jennifer Wubs

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

Issue 1: Does the Application have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to:

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

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

(h.1) the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies;

(k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;

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

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(r) the promotion of built form that (i) is well-designed; and (ii) encourages a sense of place.

Issue 2: Is the Application consistent with the policy directives of the PPS, 2024, including but not limited to the following policies: 2.5 & 2.6 [Rural Lands in Municipalities], 4.1 [Natural Heritage], and 4.2 [Water], including by taking into account evidence about the rural character of the setting in which the development is proposed and whether or not the development builds upon rural character pursuant to policy 2.5(a) in relation to supporting healthy, integrated and viable rural areas.

Issue 3: Is the Application in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the County of United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Official Plan, including but not limited to: 3.0 & 3.3 [Rural Lands].

Issue 4: Is the Application in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the Municipality of North Grenville Official Plan, including but not limited to: 2.2.5 [Economic Development], 2.3.1 [Economic Development Vision], 2.6.2 [Natural Heritage], 2.7.4 and 2.7.8 [Rural Design Goals & Strategies], 3.3.2 [On-Farm Diversified Uses], 4.1 [Permitted Uses] and 6.2.3 – 6.2.9 [Components of the Environmental and Natural Heritage System].

Issue 5: Is the Application in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-laws for the Township of North Grenville, including but not limited to 5.144 [Home Occupation], 5.167 [Lot Frontage], 6.20 [Home Occupation], 6.23 and 5.510 [Kennels], 9.2 [Non-Residential Uses], and 9.4.1 [Special Rural Kennel Zone]

Issue 6: Is the Application generally representative of good planning in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Cindy MacDonald & Gordon Fifield

2. The Municipality of North Grenville

3. Randy and Terry Olmstead

Reply Evidence of Cindy MacDonald & Gordon