Catana v. Oxford (County), 2026 CanLII 38543

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000420

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

Applicant and Appellant: Josif and Lidia Catana

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

Description: To permit a special events facility on agricultural lands that consists of three event tents, a washroom facility, a grassed parking area, and landscaped areas

Reference Number: OP 25-02-1

Property Address: 935929 Blenheim Road

Municipality/UT: Blandford-Blenheim/Oxford

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000420

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000420

OLT Case Name: Catana v. Oxford (County)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Josif and Lidia Catana

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

Description: To permit a special events facility on agricultural lands that consists of three event tents, a washroom facility, a grassed parking area, and landscaped areas

Reference Number: ZN 1-25-01

Property Address: 935929 Blenheim Road

Municipality/UT: Blandford-Blenheim/Oxford

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000371

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000420

OLT Case Name: Catana v. Blandford-Blenheim (Township)

Heard: January 19–21, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Josif and Lidia Catana

Aaron Platt

Katryna Vergis-Mayo

Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Alex Ciccone

County of Oxford

Alex Ciccone

DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal arises from appeals filed by Josif and Lidia Catana (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to the refusal by the County of Oxford (“County”) of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application, and the refusal by the Township of Blandford-Blenheim (“Township”) of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application (together “Applications”) to permit a seasonal special event facility use (“SEFU”) for the purpose of hosting weddings, corporate and personal events, retreats and workshops, among other similar uses for the property known municipally as 935929 Blenheim Road (“Property”).

2Having considered all the evidence, and for the reasons set out herein, the Tribunal allows the appeals.

THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

3The Property is a corner lot located on the west side of Blenheim Road, and the north side of Oxford Road 29 approximately 4 kilometres (“km”) east of the Village of Drumbo. It has an area of approximately 39.3 hectares (“ha”), and is currently developed with a dwelling, a detached garage, the SEFU and greenhouses at the north end of the Property, and agricultural uses on the balance of the lands. Three accessory structures are located at the south end for the storage of farm machinery and other materials. A portion of the western edge of the Property abuts the Nith River. Access to the Property, for both the residential component and the SEFU, is from a single driveway off Blenheim Road.

LAND USE POLICY CONTEXT

4The Township does not have its own official plan, and the County Official Plan (“COP”) serves as the official plan for both the County and the Township. The COP is subject to OPA 269, which updated the Agriculture Land Resource section with new policies that apply primarily to the ‘Agricultural Reserve’ designation.

5The Property is predominantly designated ‘Agricultural Reserve’ in the COP, which permits a wide range of agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses (“Ag-Related Use(s)”), and secondary uses such as on-farm diversified uses (“OFDU(s)”). Land uses surrounding the Property are predominantly designated ‘Agricultural Reserve’, with some lands to the west and south designated ‘Environmental Protection’.

6The Property is currently zoned ‘General Agricultural Zone (A2)’ under the Township Zoning By-law No. 1360-2002 (“ZBL”), which permits a wide range of agricultural uses, including farm buildings and an accessory dwelling, and requires a minimum lot area of 30 ha and a minimum lot frontage of 100 metres.

THE APPLICATIONS

7The Applications were submitted on January 31, 2025, and deemed complete on February 25, 2025. A Notice of Complete Application was issued on February 26, 2025, and a Notice of Public Meeting was issued on March 27, 2025.

8The Township refused the ZBA on April 16, 2025, and recommended that the County also refuse the OPA. The County refused the OPA on May 14, 2025, following which the Applications were appealed on May 7, 2025, and May 27, 2025, respectively.

9The OPA and ZBA would allow for a seasonal SEFU for the hosting of weddings, company/corporate events, retreats and workshops, and other events such as birthdays, retirement parties, family reunions or celebrations of life. The events are proposed to take place in three tents situated on a concrete pad, together with an existing washroom facility, a portion of the existing garage to be used as a bridal suite, and an outdoor area adjacent to the tents. Parking would be accommodated via a gravel and grass parking area accessed via the existing driveway.

10Although the SEFU is an existing use on the Property, it is not permitted without approval of the OPA and ZBA. The OPA proposes to add a site‑specific agricultural policy to permit an SEFU, while the ZBA proposes to permit an SEFU as an OFDU and to add the following site-specific zoning provisions for the OFDU use:

• a seasonal use restricted to May 1 until October 1 within the same calendar year;

• a maximum gross floor area (“GFA”) of 960 square metres (“m²”);

• a maximum area of 0.7 ha; and

• a maximum occupancy of 250 people.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11When considering appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to the decision, if any, of the approval authority and the information considered in making the decision, as required by s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

12Further, s. 3(5) of the Planning Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the policy statements that are in effect on the date of the Tribunal’s decision and to conform, or not conflict, with provincial plans that are in effect on the date of the Tribunal’s decision. In this respect, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

13The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the ZBA conforms with the COP, as required by s. 24(1) of the Planning Act, and that the Applications represent good land use planning, and are in the public interest.

14Further, although the SEFU presently exists, the Tribunal adjudicated the appeals on the basis that it does not exist, except insofar as it provides insight into potential impacts.

PARTICIPANTS

15Myra Livingstone, granted Participant status to the hearing at the Case Management Conference, had land use planning concerns related to the following: noise, lighting and vibration, traffic, timing of events, soil stability, water extraction/discharge from/into a river, wildlife, and enjoyment of private property

16Most of Ms. Livingstone’s concerns were addressed by the witnesses, with the remaining concerns more appropriately to be addressed through a future development application.

WITNESSES

17On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal qualified the following witnesses to provide opinion evidence in their respective areas of expertise, as noted:

For the Appellant:

• Pierre Chauvin – Land Use Planning

For the Township:

• Dustin Robson – Land Use Planning

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACT

18The Parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) related to land use planning, which, among other things, noted that:

1. Issues of Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”), noise, and traffic are the issues of concern from a compatibility perspective;

2. The existing SEFU conforms to and satisfies the MDS I requirements (regarding the separation distance for new development from livestock facilities and anaerobic digesters) of the PPS and the COP;

3. No traffic issues were raised by Township or County public works staff with respect to the Applications;

4. ‘Pending approval’ of the Applications currently before the Tribunal, Site Plan approval (“SPA”) will be required;

5. Any lighting impacts may be addressed through the SPA process, conditions, and security through a Site Plan agreement; and

6. Any noise mitigation measures may be implemented through either site‑specific COP policies, and/or ZBL requirements, and/or the SPA process and a Site Plan agreement.

MINUTES OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

19An ASF was also submitted related to acoustics, but was superseded by executed Minutes of Partial Settlement (“MOS”), which provided that:

• a Sound Management Plan (“SMP”), included as Schedule “A” to the MOS, is to be secured as a condition of SPA and reflected in the OPA; and

• SEFU events are to be limited to a maximum of three times per week.

20The MOS further provided for Issue 5 on the Issues List to be struck. Issue 5 reads as follows:

5. Does the proposed use present unacceptable land use conflicts, including noise and/or lighting impacts, with existing rural residential uses? If so, what if any mitigation measures are available to adequately address those land use conflicts?

21In this respect, land use compatibility (“LUC”) related to acoustics is no longer at issue.

EVIDENCE / ANALYSIS / FINDINGS

22From the evidence, one principal issue emerged: whether the SEFU qualifies as an OFDU as defined in the PPS, and further elaborated in the Province’s Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas, Publication 851 (“Guideline 851”), and as defined in the COP.

OFDUs / PPS / Guideline 851

23Policy 4.3.2.1 of the PPS states:

In prime agricultural areas, permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses based on provincial guidance.

Proposed agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on provincial guidance or municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives. [underline emphasis added]

24OFDUs are defined in the PPS as:

uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses, uses that produce value-added agricultural products, and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and energy storage systems.

25The ASF notes that the ‘provincial guidance’ referenced in policy 4.3.2.1 of the PPS is Guideline 851, and that it is “a Guideline only and is not to be given the same weight as law or policy”.

26Guideline 851 identifies five key criteria (“Criteria” / “Criterion”), each of which must be met for a use in Prime Agricultural (“Prime Ag”) areas to be considered an OFDU:

1. Located on a farm;

2. Secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property;

3. Limited in area;

4. Includes, but is not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses and uses that produce value-added agricultural products; and

5. Shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations.

27With respect to the third Criterion limiting the area of an OFDU, Guideline 851 recommends limiting OFDUs to no more than 2 percent (“%”) of the total area of a property, to a maximum of 1 ha, and the combined GFA of all OFDU-related buildings not exceed 20% of the 2%.

28Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU is consistent with Guideline 851 and meets the Criteria. It was his further opinion that the SEFU is consistent with the PPS, is compatible with and does not hinder surrounding agricultural operations, and does not undermine the protection and preservation of the Prime Ag area or the economic prosperity of the agri-food network. He added that, as a seasonal venue, it promotes an opportunity to diversify the rural economic base.

29Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is not consistent with the PPS and is similar to a banquet hall, a use that Guideline 851 does not permit as an OFDU. He further opined that the SEFU is not consistent with the Criteria required to qualify as an OFDU, as although it can be considered to be located on a farm and limited in area, it is not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the Property and is not compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

30As addressed below, the Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence and, where the evidence diverged, prefers the evidence of Mr. Chauvin in finding that the SEFU qualifies as an OFDU as contemplated by the PPS and Guideline 851, as it is located on a farm, is secondary to the agricultural use of the Property, is limited in area, qualifies as an ‘agri-tourism use’ (“Agri-Tourism Use”), and is compatible with surrounding agricultural operations. In this respect, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Chauvin that the SEFU is consistent with the PPS.

1. Located on a farm

31Mr. Chauvin noted that the Property is actively in agricultural use including the production of cash and horticultural crops, and the production and sale of chicken eggs. In this respect, it was his opinion that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being located on a farm.

32Mr. Robson agreed that the SEFU “can be considered to be located on a farm”. However, he also adduced evidence addressing whether the owners of the Property meet the COP definition of ‘Farm Owner’, a term he conceded on cross-examination applies to surplus farm dwelling policies and does not apply to OFDU policies, which refer to the undefined term ‘farmers’. He maintained, however, that while it would not be appropriate to substitute ‘Farm Owner’ for ‘farmer’ in this context, the definition provided guidance in his assessment of the Criteria.

Finding

33The Tribunal finds that the uncontroverted evidence that the Property functions as a farm is sufficient to establish that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being located on a farm. Whether the Property is owned and operated by a ‘farmer’ or a ‘Farm Owner’ is immaterial to the consideration of whether the SEFU meets the Criterion.

2. Secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property

34Mr. Chauvin advised that, under Guideline 851, ‘secondary’ refers to the area, size, and scale of the use. He noted that spatial considerations are addressed under the third Criterion, while temporal considerations apply to temporary or intermittent uses such as SEFUs. He added that the frequency and timing of events must not interfere with crop cycles or other agricultural uses on the farm or in the surrounding area.

35Mr. Chauvin noted that temporally, the SEFU would operate intermittently (up to three days per week) from May 1 to October 1 each year, with most events occurring in the afternoon and evening, mostly on Saturdays and occasionally on Fridays and Sundays, with weekday events considered rare. He further noted that the PPS definition of an OFDU requires agricultural uses to remain the dominant use of the Property. In his opinion, the intermittent timing of the SEFU would limit interference with the agricultural use of the Property and surrounding area.

36With respect to the restriction in Guideline 851 classifying “[l]arge-scale, repeated or permanent events” as not qualifying as OFDUs, Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU does not propose events of that nature. He noted that, while ‘large-scale’ is not a defined term, the SEFU meets the scale-related Criteria and the ‘limited in area’ Criterion, and the ZBA includes maximum area, GFA, and occupancy provisions to limit the scale, as well as a provision limiting events weekly and seasonally as addressed above.

37Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and that the scale of the use does not ensure that it is clearly secondary to the agricultural operation. He further opined that, although the PPS definition of an OFDU includes a non‑exhaustive list of secondary uses, an SEFU is not similar to any of the listed examples. He did not further expand on his reasoning why the SEFU is not secondary to the principal agricultural use.

38Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU should be considered permanent for the foreseeable future, as it would be established as a permitted use and would include permanent elements, including the washroom facility with a foundation and tents bolted to concrete pads. He further opined that such a use would not qualify as an OFDU, as Guideline 851 identifies large-scale recurring events with permanent structures as uses that do not qualify.

Finding

39The Tribunal accepts Mr. Chauvin’s evidence that the SEFU is both spatially and temporally secondary to the agricultural use of the Property and would not interfere with agricultural operations on the Property or in the surrounding area. Mr. Robson did not provide reasons to support his opinion that the SEFU is not secondary to the principal use, and the Tribunal does not find his evidence regarding the permanency of the tent structures persuasive. The Tribunal distinguishes between what has been constructed and the permission being sought, namely the use, and does not consider a tent, even with structural components, to constitute a permanent structure.

40In this respect, the Tribunal finds that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being secondary to the principal agricultural use of the Property.

3. Limited in area

41Mr. Chauvin noted that both the PPS and Guideline 851 limit the area of OFDUs in order to minimize the amount of land taken out of agricultural production, ensure agriculture remains the main land use in Prime Ag areas, and limit off-site impacts to the rural character such as traffic and noise, and to ensure compatibility with surrounding agricultural operations.

42Mr. Chauvin advised that the SEFU occupies approximately 0.72 ha, or 1.8% of the Property, and the total GFA of structures associated with the SEFU is 1,016 m², both of which fall within the recommended limits set out in Guideline 851. He explained that the 1,016 m² figure is greater than the originally requested 960 m² because the bridal suite had not initially been included in the calculation. He confirmed however that the 1,016 m² remains within the limits set out in Guideline 851. He further noted that no additional buildings or structures are proposed. With respect to parking, he advised that only a small portion of the existing cropland is required for ‘gravel and turf’ parking, and that this would not result in a permanent loss of agricultural land, as the area could reasonably be returned to an agricultural condition with minimal remediation.

43Mr. Robson agreed that the SEFU “can be considered … limited in area” in the context of the Criterion.

Finding

44The uncontroverted evidence on this issue is clear, and the Tribunal accepts the witnesses’ evidence and finds that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being limited in area.

4. Includes, but is not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri‑tourism uses and uses that produce value-added agricultural products

45Mr. Chauvin noted that footnote 8 to Table 2 in Guideline 851 (“Footnote 8”) identifies “large wedding and banquet facilities” as examples of Agri‑Tourism Uses permitted as OFDUs. He further noted that Guideline 851 indicates that a wide variety of uses may qualify as OFDUs based on the PPS definitions, provided the Criteria are met. In his opinion, this emphasizes that adherence to the Criteria is the core test for determining whether a use qualifies as an OFDU. Given the SEFU’s similarity to “large wedding and banquet facilities”, he opined that it should be considered an agri‑tourism‑based OFDU.

46Mr. Robson took the position that, although the PPS definition of an OFDU provides a non‑exhaustive list of uses (including Agri-Tourism Uses), the SEFU is not similar to any of the listed examples.

47Mr. Robson further opined that the SEFU is similar to a banquet hall and operates as a large-scale, recurring event with permanent structures, uses identified in s. 2.3.3 of Guideline 851 as examples that “would typically NOT be” OFDUs.

48During cross-examination, Mr. Robson acknowledged that Guideline 851 distinguishes between banquet halls and banquet facilities but maintained that they are similar. He suggested that tents can, in some circumstances, be comparable in scale to banquet halls, citing large beer tents in Munich, Germany known as ‘beer halls’. He agreed, however, that Footnote 8 does not restrict permanent structures for banquet facilities and that banquet facilities are permitted, whereas banquet halls are not.

49In Mr. Chauvin’s opinion, the SEFU differs materially from a banquet hall. He noted that banquet halls are permanent structures capable of hosting events year‑round, whereas the SEFU would operate within a tent and be limited to a maximum of three days per week between May 1 to October 1 each year. He characterized such limitations as extremely uncommon for banquet halls and stated that the SEFU is more comparable to a banquet facility.

The SEFU as an Agri-Tourism Use vs a Non-Agricultural Use

50Whether the SEFU qualifies as an Agri-Tourism Use or is more appropriately classified as a Non-Agricultural Use (“Non-Ag Use”) emerged as a sub-issue in determining whether it meets the Criterion. Mr. Robson treated the SEFU as a Non‑Ag Use based on its treatment under the COP, whereas Mr. Chauvin maintained that it qualifies as an Agri‑Tourism Use under the PPS definition of an OFDU and Guideline 851.

51Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU does not qualify as an OFDU, stating that it is not secondary to the principal agricultural use of the Property and does not relate to agriculture. He relied on policy 3.1.4.3.2 of the COP, which prohibits SEFUs as OFDUs, and opined that uses attracting large numbers of people may give rise to compatibility and enforcement concerns.

52Mr. Robson further noted that under policy 3.1.4.3.3 of the COP, banquet halls and SEFUs are not permitted as Ag-Related Uses, and that the SEFU therefore does not meet that classification. Mr. Chauvin also did not equate the SEFU to an Ag‑Related Use.

53Based on these prohibitions, Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is more appropriately categorized as a Non-Ag Use. He further stated that, as such, section 4.3.5 of the PPS would require demonstration of need within the planning horizon and an evaluation of alternative locations. He advised that neither requirement has been addressed and, as a result, the need to remove Prime Ag land from production has not been demonstrated.

54Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU is consistent with the PPS definition of an OFDU and with Guideline 851, and that it qualifies as an Agri‑Tourism Use. He noted that Guideline 851 recognizes a wide variety of OFDUs, provided the Criteria are met, and identified Footnote 8 as expressly contemplating “large wedding and banquet facilities” as permitted OFDU examples.

Finding

55The Tribunal accepts Mr. Chauvin’s evidence and, when read as a whole, Guideline 851 supports the classification of the SEFU as an OFDU. Although Guideline 851 identifies ‘large-scale’, ‘repeated’, and ‘permanent’ events as uses that would not constitute OFDUs, it also identifies ‘large weddings’ and ‘banquet facilities’ as examples of Agri-Tourism Uses permitted as OFDUs. The Tribunal notes an internal tension within Guideline 851 in this regard, and notes that it is guidance rather than binding policy.

56In addition, as the SEFU is primarily intended to host weddings, the Tribunal finds it clearly analogous to a wedding or banquet facility and therefore an Agri-Tourism Use for the purposes of the PPS. Neither ‘banquet hall’ nor ‘banquet facility’ is defined in the PPS or Guideline 851, and the SEFU can reasonably be considered a banquet facility. Accordingly, the SEFU cannot be characterized as a use that would “typically NOT be” an OFDU on the basis that it is comparable to a banquet hall. The Tribunal therefore finds that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being an Agri-Tourism Use. The COP prohibition does not, in itself, alter that classification, as although the COP contains criteria and restrictions for OFDUs, for the purposes of the Criteria, the classification of the use must be determined in accordance with the PPS and informed by Guideline 851.

5. Shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations

57Guideline 851 adopts the corresponding criterion for Ag‑Related Uses and provides that those considerations apply equally to OFDUs. It cautions that some uses may meet other Criteria but still be incompatible if they “attract large numbers of people” that “could result in soil compaction on the farm itself, excessive noise and trespass issues”, or are better suited to settlement areas with municipal services.

58To meet this Criterion, all of the following sub-criteria must be met for the SEFU to be considered an OFDU. Further, ‘surrounding agricultural operations’ include those on the Property. Based on the findings on the sub-criteria, the Tribunal finds that the SEFU meets the Criterion of being compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

Ensure surrounding agricultural operations are able to pursue their agricultural practices without impairment or inconvenience

59Mr. Chauvin noted that the SEFU does not pose compatibility concerns to surrounding normal farm practices as it complies with the MDS in relation to nearby livestock operations and the County agreed that it complies. Further, he opined that it is not anticipated to restrict future expansion of surrounding livestock facilities.

60Mr. Chauvin also noted that the Traffic Impact Assessment (“TIA”) confirmed that road access would continue to operate ‘favourably’, with no anticipated impacts related to the use of Blenheim Road by agricultural vehicles.

61Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU does not relate to agriculture, is not compatible with and has the potential to hinder surrounding agricultural operations, and does not protect prime agriculture areas for the long-term.

Finding

62The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Chauvin and finds that the SEFU would not impair or inconvenience agricultural operations on surrounding properties or on the Property. This conclusion is supported by the MDS analysis regarding nearby livestock facilities and by the TIA, which identifies no anticipated traffic impacts. This conclusion is further reinforced by the absence of any Party or Participant status requests from surrounding farmers or owners of agricultural land.

Uses should be appropriate to available rural services (e.g., do not require the level of road access, water and wastewater servicing, utilities, fire protection and other public services typically found in settlement areas)

63Mr. Chauvin indicated that the SEFU does not require the level of servicing, road access, fire protection, utilities, or other public services typically found in settlement areas, and that it is adequately serviced by a private well and septic system and a proposed underground water tank for firefighting purposes.

64Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is not appropriate for rural infrastructure and public services and that it would undermine and conflict with the planned functions of settlements. It was his further opinion that, given non-agricultural development is incompatible with and causes conflicts with agriculture, the SEFU would be more appropriately located in a settlement area where municipal wastewater and water infrastructure, and public service facilities are available.

65When questioned by the Tribunal regarding his evidence on the planned functions of settlements, Mr. Robson explained that the SEFU does not need to be in the rural area and should be located within a settlement area with appropriate wastewater infrastructure and firefighting services. In addition, he suggested that it would “not uphold what settlement areas are meant for”. Under further cross-examination, he conceded that there was no analysis to support his opinion on the ability of the SEFU to undermine the planned function of settlements.

Finding

66The Tribunal prefers the testimony of Mr. Chauvin and finds that the SEFU does not require the level of services provided in settlement areas and can be appropriately serviced in the rural area. The Tribunal gives no weight to Mr. Robson’s opinion on the potential for the SEFU to undermine the planned function of settlements.

Maintain the agricultural/rural character of the area

67Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU is well set back from adjacent agricultural/rural properties and the surrounding road network, and has limited visibility from public roads and nearby dwellings. He further opined that the tents are not out of keeping with the agricultural/rural area and are of similar shape, height and form to agricultural greenhouses, drive sheds or similar structures, and are temporary in nature. Additionally, he noted that the washroom facility matches the exterior of the house and is located to the rear of the tents to further buffer it from public view, the bridal suite is located within the existing garage, and no outdoor storage is associated with the SEFU.

68Mr. Chauvin opined that the duration and seasonality of the SEFU would significantly limit the ability for it to alter the agricultural/rural character of the area, and the SMP would ensure appropriate mitigation.

69Mr. Robson did not address this consideration but conceded on cross-examination that only the upper portion of the tents are viewable from Blenheim Road as they are located behind the crops and to the rear of the Property.

Finding

70The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Chauvin and finds that the SEFU would maintain the agricultural/rural character of the area. Its limited visibility from Blenheim Road, together with the temporary and seasonal nature of the tents further supports this conclusion.

Meet all applicable provincial air emission, noise, water and wastewater standards and receive all relevant environmental approvals

71Mr. Chauvin noted that the applicable standards relate to noise, and that the mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Impact Assessment would ensure the SEFU operates within provincially acceptable levels. It was his opinion that these measures, including the SMP, can be secured through the OPA and/or Site Plan Control, and that no other environmental approvals would be required.

72Mr. Robson noted that the primary concern is with respect to noise impacts on rural residential uses, but that based on the ASF related to noise, it was his opinion that this issue is resolvable with the proposed mitigation measures.

Finding

73Given the applicable standards are limited to noise, noise mitigation measures are to be implemented as per the ASF, and the witnesses agree that any noise impacts have been resolved, the Tribunal finds that the SEFU meets the applicable provincial standards to satisfy this consideration.

County Official Plan

74As the COP prohibits SEFUs and restricts OFDUs to a maximum area of 557 m², the OPA is required to permit the SEFU and to increase the maximum area to 1,016 m².

75The COP emphasizes protecting Prime Ag areas and preventing land uses that could hinder agricultural operations or that are better suited to serviced settlement areas.

76Mr. Chauvin noted that OFDUs are permitted within the Agricultural Reserve designation, subject to the applicable secondary use and Ag-Related Use policies. He stated that the SEFU meets the COP requirements for OFDUs, other than the maximum GFA limit, including: obtaining a site‑specific ZBA; meeting the minimum lot area requirement; requiring the owner to reside on the Property; providing a Concept Plan; locating the use within the farm cluster and sharing the existing driveway; being limited in area; meeting MDS, servicing, and traffic requirements; and not exceeding 2% of the total lot area.

77With respect to the COP’s maximum GFA of 557 m² for OFDUs, Mr. Chauvin posited that its intent is to ensure OFDUs remain ‘limited in area’ in order to minimize impacts and the amount of land taken out of agricultural production. He noted that the COP applies this limit regardless of property size, whereas Guideline 851 adopts a proportional lot-coverage approach based on the premise that larger properties can accommodate larger OFDUs. In his opinion, the OPA meets the general intent and purpose of the COP, as it permits an owner-managed OFDU that financially supports the farm operation, remains limited in area in accordance with Guideline 851, is secondary to agriculture, and is compatible with on-site and adjacent agricultural uses. While acknowledging that the COP prohibits SEFUs as OFDUs, and that proposals exceeding the COP’s GFA limit may only be permitted if they comply with the Ag-Related Use policies, he stated that Ag‑Related Uses constitute a separate use category with different criteria and that OFDUs should not be assessed as Ag‑Related or Non‑Ag Uses. He added, however, that if the SEFU were evaluated as an Ag‑Related Use, it would generally conform.

78Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU is compatible with, and does not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations, and does not undermine the protection and preservation of the Prime Ag area or current and future agricultural production. In this regard, he noted that the SEFU complies with the MDS formulae; that mitigation measures can be implemented through the planning instruments and future site plan control conditions to address hours of operation and noise mitigation; that the ZBA controls the size, capacity, and seasonality of the SEFU; that none of the structures are permanent and can be removed or repurposed for agricultural use (other than the washroom and the bridal suite in the existing garage); and that the SEFU is set back from the road and located within the existing farm cluster.

79Mr. Chauvin further opined that the SEFU is compatible with the COP principles relating to the protection of Prime Ag areas and rural natural resources, as it complies with the MDS formulae, and mitigation measures can be implemented to address matters related to hours of operation and noise.

80Mr. Chauvin further opined that the SEFU does not undermine agriculture as the priority use within the Agricultural Reserve designation and meets the intent and purpose of the agricultural policies of the COP as they relate to OFDUs. He added that it will support the existing farm operation through supplemental income, is limited in area, is secondary to the agricultural use of the Property, and is compatible with the on-site and adjacent agricultural operations.

81Mr. Chauvin agreed that the COP prohibits SEFUs as OFDUs, noting this as the reason the OPA is required. He opined that the OPA is consistent with the OFDU policies of the PPS and with Guideline 851 as it is compatible with, and does not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations, and does not undermine the protection of the Prime Ag area or the economic prosperity of the agri-food network. In addition, he opined that it provides an economic opportunity to diversify the rural economic base in a manner compatible with the existing and ongoing agricultural use of the Property and surrounding area.

82Mr. Robson stated that the SEFU is not consistent with the COP, noting that SEFUs, including banquet halls, are specifically listed as uses not permitted as OFDUs or Ag‑Related Uses. He further opined that, as the SEFU would attract a large number of people, there could be compatibility and enforcement concerns, and would therefore not comply with the COP criteria for OFDUs.

83Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU does not achieve the COP goals of limiting the scale of OFDUs to be clearly secondary to the agricultural operation, compatible with surrounding agricultural operations, and protective of Prime Ag areas over the long term.

84With respect to the GFA limit of 557 m² in the COP, Mr. Robson opined that the proposed GFA it is not consistent with the limit and would set an undesirable precedent.

85Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is not consistent with the COP’s OFDU policy limiting only two employees who do not reside on-site for large‑scale events such as weddings. Given that there are no permanent employees, and the SEFU would be supported by contract employees, he reasoned that the SEFU would require more than two off‑site workers and that the COP’s employee limitation applies to all employees, regardless of whether they are full‑time or contracted.

86Mr. Robson concluded that the SEFU does not represent an OFDU, does not meet the COP’s approach to OFDUs, and is more appropriately considered a Non-Ag Use, as discussed in paragraphs [50] through [56].

Mineral Aggregate Resources

87It was agreed between the Parties that the Property is located within a ‘Sand and Gravel Resources Area’ on Appendix 2-1 of the COP.

88Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU has regard for the management and conservation of the mineral resource base and does not introduce any new LUC issues with respect to access to mineral aggregate resources and would not further preclude or hinder the establishment of new aggregate operations or access to the resource. He noted that “it is difficult to imagine that a concrete pad with tent structures, gravel and turf parking area, landscaped walkway, and washroom facility would hinder or preclude extraction or access to the resource; these items could be easily removed to facilitate extraction”. He suggested that the existing dwelling, which is a permitted use, would cause a greater hindrance.

89Mr. Chauvin proffered that the establishment of a new aggregate operation or access to the resource on adjacent properties would already be limited, if not prohibited, by the dwelling as well as dwellings on adjacent properties. Further, he advised that there are no existing or proposed mineral aggregate operations within 5 km from the Property and that, in his opinion, policy 4.5.2.5 of the PPS related to the protection of mineral aggregate operations is not relevant or applicable to the Applications.

90Mr. Robson noted that permitting non-agricultural development on the Property could impact future resource extraction and would not ensure the long-term protection of the resource. On this basis, he opined that the SEFU does not have regard for the protection of agricultural resources under s. 2 of the Planning Act, does not meet the intent or direction of section 4.5 of the PPS, and does not conform with policy 3.4.1.3.1.3 of the COP, which prohibits new non‑agricultural commercial uses in Sand and Gravel Resource Areas. In his opinion, the SEFU qualifies as a non-agricultural commercial use.

Finding

91The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Chauvin that the SEFU, as an OFDU, is compatible with, and does not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations, and does not undermine the protection and preservation of the Prime Ag area. In this respect, as the SEFU meets the COP requirements for OFDUs, other than the maximum GFA limit, the Tribunal finds that the SEFU meets the intent of the COP policies and direction regarding OFDUs regardless of its prohibition to SEFUs as OFDUs.

92The Tribunal does not accept Mr. Robson’s opinion that the SEFU should be considered a Non-Ag Use or a non-agricultural commercial use. His conclusion was based on his view that the SEFU does not qualify as either an OFDU or an Ag‑Related Use, and he provided no further analysis applying the PPS or COP criteria for Non‑Ag Uses. In contrast, an SEFU for the hosting of weddings is identified in Footnote 8 as a permitted OFDU and is supported by Guideline 851.

93The Tribunal also prefers Mr. Chauvin’s evidence regarding the GFA of the SEFU. The application of a fixed GFA limit in the COP, regardless of property size, does not reflect Guideline 851’s ‘limited in size’ Criterion which is based on a proportional lot-coverage approach of up to 2% of the lot area, to a maximum of 1 ha. In this respect, the COP limit is therefore not in line with provincial guidance. As the SEFU meets all of the Criteria in Guideline 851, the Tribunal finds that the OPA is supportable notwithstanding the COP restriction.

94With respect to mineral aggregate resources, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Chauvin and finds that the existing dwelling on the Property already constrains the potential for aggregate extraction. The SEFU is sufficiently limited in area and consists of structures that are readily removable in order to facilitate future extraction. While Mr. Robson expressed concern that permitting Non-Agricultural development could affect future extraction and the long‑term protection of the resource, he did not provide an analysis supporting that opinion. OFDUs are not considered a Non-Ag Use in this context and therefore are not prohibited by the COP. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the intent of each of the Planning Act, the PPS, and the COP regarding the protection and long‑term management of mineral aggregate resources is maintained.

Provincial Interest

95It was Mr. Chauvin’s opinion that the SEFU has sufficient regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, as it would protect agricultural resources while permitting an OFDU as permitted in the PPS, is not located within an area containing significant natural heritage features, has no negative impacts on natural resources, complies with the MDS formulae requirements, resolves LUCs issues, and would not compromise the character of the rural area.

96Mr. Robson testified that the SEFU is not in keeping with provincial interests in s. 2 of the Planning Act, as it does not protect agriculture, is incompatible with and creates conflicts for agricultural uses, has potential to impact mineral aggregate extraction, and is not in an appropriate location given his concerns regarding LUC. He further opined that “given non-agricultural development is incompatible with and causes conflicts with agriculture”, the SEFU would be more appropriately located within a settlement area with municipal infrastructure and public service facilities, where conflicts with agricultural operations are minimized.

Finding

97The Tribunal is satisfied, based on Mr. Chauvin’s evidence, that the SEFU has sufficient regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act. Mr. Robson’s opinion is premised on the SEFU being considered a Non-Ag Use, a classification the Tribunal does not accept for the reasons set out in paragraphs [55] and [56]. Further, Mr. Robson did not provide a substantiated analysis demonstrating how the SEFU would be incompatible with agricultural uses, particularly in light of the evidence that the LUC issues have been appropriately addressed and resolved, or how the SEFU would otherwise undermine provincial interests.

Summary Opinion

98Overall, Mr. Chauvin opined that the SEFU is an OFDU and has appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS and Guideline 851, conforms with the COP, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest. It was his recommendation that the Tribunal allow the appeals and approve the OPA and ZBA instruments.

99Overall, Mr. Robson opined that the SEFU is not an OFDU and is more appropriately considered a Non-Ag Use. It was his opinion that it does not have sufficient regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, is not consistent with the PPS or Guideline 851, and does not conform to the COP. In his opinion, the SEFU does not represent good land use planning or serve the public interest, and the Appeals should not be allowed.

Summary Findings

100Guideline 851 is intended to assist municipalities in interpreting and implementing PPS policies related to agricultural land, and the Planning Act requires all planning decisions, including OPAs, to be consistent with the PPS. While municipalities may adopt official plan policies that are more restrictive than provincial policy, such discretion is not unlimited and must not result in inconsistency with the PPS. As noted in section 1.5 of Guideline 851, being more restrictive may, in some circumstances, limit options for farmers and local economic development, or may be inconsistent with the PPS. In this respect, where an official plan is more restrictive than the PPS, an OPA can act as a mechanism to apply provincial policy in order to avoid inconsistency.

101In this case, the COP prohibits the SEFU from being considered an OFDU, while the evidence demonstrates that the proposal satisfies all of the applicable criteria in Guideline 851 and the COP. The Tribunal finds that the COP prohibition, as applied to this proposal, results in a level of restrictiveness that renders the COP inconsistent with the PPS, and that the OPA is therefore an appropriate mechanism to ensure consistency with provincial policy.

102The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Chauvin with respect to matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, the PPS, and the COP, and finds that the OPA satisfies the applicable criteria in both Guideline 851 and the COP for OFDUs, is justified by, and is consistent with, the PPS and has regard to Guideline 851. The Tribunal further finds that the ZBA adequately addresses LUC concerns.

103In light of these findings, the Tribunal finds that the Applications represent good land use planning, are in the public interest and should be approved.

ORDER

104THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed in part, and the Official Plan of the County of Oxford is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and Zoning By-law No. 1360-2002 of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

105The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerks of the County of Oxford and the Township of Blandford-Blenheim to assign numbers to the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment for record-keeping purposes.

“C.I. Molinari”

C.I. MOLINARI

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

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF TOWNSHIP OF BLANDFORD-BLENHEIM

BY-LAW NUMBER XXXX-2026

A By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 1360-2002, as amended.

WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford- Blenheim deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 1360-2002, as amended.

THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of Blandford- Blenheim enacts as follows:

1. That Schedule "A" to By-Law Number 1360-2002, as amended, is hereby amended by changing to “A2-XX” the zone symbol of the lands so designated and “A2-XX” on Schedule “A” attached hereto.

2. That Section 7.6. to By-law Number 1360-2002, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following subsection at the end thereof.

7.6.XX Location: Part Lot 7, Concession 7 (Blandford-Blenheim), A2-XX (Key Map 27)

7.6.XX.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Zoning By-Law to the contrary, no person shall within any A2-XX Zone use any lot, or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except for the following:

all uses permitted in Section 7.2 of this Zoning By-Law;

a Special Event Facility as an on-farm diversified use;

7.6.XX.2 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Zoning By-Law to the contrary, no person shall within any A2-XX Zone use any lot, or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except in accordance with the following provisions:

7.6.XX.2.1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR A SPECIAL EVENT FACILITY

7.6.XX.2.1.2 For the purposes of this By-law, a special event facility shall mean a building, structure, and outdoor space associated with the use, that is used for the gathering of persons for weddings, receptions, retreats/ workshops, celebrations of life or similar functions, and may include the consumption of food and beverages.

7.6.XX.2.1.3 SEASONAL USE

For the purposes of this By-law, special events are permitted to be held for a maximum of three (3) times per week from May 1^st to October 1^st within the same calendar year.

7.6.XX.2.1.4 GROSS FLOOR AREA

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Zoning By-law, the maximum Gross Floor Area of a Special Event Facility shall be 1016 m², excluding any landscaped and parking areas.

7.6.XX.2.1.5 LIMIT IN AREA

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Zoning By-law, the limit in area for the Special Event Facility shall be a maximum of 0.7 ha (1.8 ac).

7.6.XX.2.1.6 OCCUPANCY

For the purpose of this By-law, a maximum occupancy of 250 people is permitted for a special event.

7.6.XX.2.1.7 That all the provisions of the A2 Zone in Section 7.2 of this Zoning By-law, as amended, shall apply, and further, that all other provisions of this Zoning By-law, as amended, that are consistent with the provisions herein shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis.”

3. This By-Law comes into force in accordance with Sections 34(21) and (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.

Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal this ____ day of _____, 2026.