Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 21, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000072
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Slessor Square LP1
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To facilitate the development of a high-density mixed-use building with two towers that includes 570 residential units
Reference Number: LOPA-07/25
Property Address: 388 Main Street East, 389, 395, 399, 405, 409 Pearl Street and 17 Prince Street
Municipality/UT: Milton/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000072
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000072
OLT Case Name: Slessor Square LP1 v. Milton (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Slessor Square LP1
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of a high-density mixed-use building with two towers that includes 570 residential units
Reference Number: Z-18/25
Property Address: 388 Main Street East, 389, 395, 399, 405, 409 Pearl Street and 17 Prince Street
Municipality/UT: Milton/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000074
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000072
OLT Case Name: Slessor Square LP1 v. Milton (Town)
Heard: April 14, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Slessor Square LP1 | Stephanie Fleming, Russell Cheeseman (in absentia) |
| Town of Milton | Konstantine Stavrakos |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY n. eisazadeh ON April 14, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened in appeals filed by Slessor Square LP1 (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), against the refusal by the Town of Milton (“Town”) to approve an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). The OPA and ZBA are sought to facilitate a high-density mixed-use building with two towers encompassing 570 residential units (“Proposed Development”) at the lands municipally known as 388 Main Street, 389, 395, 399, 405, 409 Pearl Street, and 17 Prince Street (“Subject Lands”).
NOTICE
2The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service sworn by Darlene Hornsby, dated March 18, 2026, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given. The Affidavit of Service of Darlene Hornsby was marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
3There were no requests for Party status before the Tribunal.
4There were 29 separate requests for Participant status from the following individuals (with their attendance at the CMC as noted – “Participant Candidates”):
i. Nancy Almeida (absent) ii. Kathryn Boroski (present) iii. Ryan Chang (absent) iv. Edward Fiore (present) v. Tessa Fiore (present) vi. Marguerite Flynn (absent) vii. T. Earl Goodeve (present) viii. Steve Hillier (present) ix. Paul Hollingshead (absent) x. Richard Houle (absent) xi. Lawrence Jacobs (present) xii. Nik Krpan (present) xiii. Patricia Lee (absent) xiv. Brian Madore (absent) xv. Marlene McDermott (absent) xvi. Michael Moar (present) xvii. Rebecca Montanaro (absent) xviii. Robert Montanaro (present) xix. Estelle Pereira (present) xx. Greg Pereira (present) xxi. Natasha Puga (present) xxii. Andrew Savage (absent) xxiii. Yew Siang (Philip) Shim (absent) xxiv. Kathy Stephenson (absent) xxv. Lanfah Theriault (present) xxvi. Helen Uong (present) xxvii. Greg Vail (present) xxviii. Katherine Waszkiewicz (present) xxix. Michelle Wheaton (absent)
5The Tribunal raised the following two general concerns with the Participant status requests:
i. There were a number of individuals who had submitted request forms with a covering email that indicated further documentation was also attached; however, no such documentation was received by the Tribunal.
ii. Given the volume of individual request forms and statements, and a number of duplicative issues, the Tribunal invited a conversation among the Parties to determine if some of the duplicative issues and concerns raised could be streamlined into one consolidated statement (“Consolidated Statement”). This suggestion was one to be considered on a voluntary basis by the Participant Candidates, and to be filed at a later date, in order to assist the Tribunal in receiving that information in a more organized format.
6Counsel for the Appellant, Stephanie Fleming, agreed with the suggestion of a Consolidated Statement. Ms. Fleming further raised the following four concerns respecting the Participant status requests:
i. Not all individuals identified their ownership/residency location, and in particular, their proximity to the Proposed Development. This information would assist the Appellant in responding to the context of the particular concerns raised.
ii. The Appellant was not in receipt of all 29 Participant status request forms and statements. Ms. Fleming requested that copies be made available to the Appellant for appropriate response at the Merit Hearing.
iii. A number of duplicative concerns are raised between the Participant statements, and in particular, between family members and/or spouses residing at the same address who had filed multiple individual statements.
iv. Ms. Fleming objected to the granting of Participant status to those individuals who were absent from the CMC. Ms. Fleming submitted that all individuals who were requesting status are expected to attend the first Hearing event where such matters would be determined. The Tribunal was therefore not required to grant status to those individuals who were absent.
7Subject to those concerns, Ms. Fleming advised the Appellant was not otherwise objecting to the granting of Participant status to the balance of the individual requests.
8The Town supported the granting of Participant status to all 29 individuals. Counsel for the Town, Konstantine Stavrakos, responded to Ms. Fleming’s general concerns, and the suggestion of a Consolidated Statement, as follows:
i. Compelling a Participant Candidate to disclose their address particulars raises privacy concerns. This may discourage participation of community members with an interest in land development initiatives, particularly given a proximate location would be sufficient to address the concerns of the Appellant.
ii. There is no statutory requirement compelling an individual seeking Participant status to attend the Hearing event in order to be granted status. Given many of the Participant Candidates are community members unrepresented by legal counsel, they may not be aware that their absence could disqualify the granting of their request for status. Furthermore, given their participation would be limited to a written process, there is no prejudice to the Appellant, in that there would be no impact to the Hearing process itself.
iii. There would be practical challenges in attempting to generate a Consolidated Statement encompassing the concerns of all 29 individuals who are unrepresented by legal counsel. Additionally, the fling of individual Participant statements is part of the Tribunal’s adjudicative process for members of the community to be permitted to express themselves in their own singular voice and not just for one streamlined statement of issues. Given that the ability of community members to participate in the adjudicative process has been significantly reduced legislatively over the years, such a Consolidated Statement process may only serve to further curtail those voices and the value in their individual expression. Mr. Stavrakos considerately suggested that the Town’s Land Use Planner could create a consolidated chart of the concerns which could be circulated to be addressed by the Parties and their witnesses for the purposes of the Merit Hearing, if that would be of assistance to the Tribunal.
9The Tribunal was persuaded by the submissions of Mr. Stavrakos respecting the absent Participant Candidates. While the Notice of CMC does indicate that attendance is required, and the Tribunal has the inherent jurisdiction to consider absenteeism as a factor in the granting of status, there is no statutory requirement compelling attendance as a prerequisite condition for Participant status.
10The Tribunal further acknowledged that the precise addresses of the Participant Candidates was not being requested by the Appellant. The Tribunal notes that any community member entitled to Notice of the proceedings would be expected to have their address information already included as part of the public record. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal endorsed that for the purposes of this CMC and the granting of status, confirmation of the general proximity of respective ownership interest/residency location of the Participant Candidates was sufficient to allow the Appellant and its witnesses to adequately respond to the concerns raised within their respective statements.
11The Tribunal also accepted Mr. Stavrakos’ offer to have the Town’s Land Use Planner take the initiative of creating a consolidated chart of the concerns and issues raised by all Participants statements, to be circulated and addressed by the Parties and their respective witnesses for the purposes of the Merit Hearing.
12Accordingly, the Tribunal granted Participant status to all 29 individuals identified in Attachment A to this Decision, subject to the following:
i. All those individuals identified in Attachment A shall provide written confirmation to the case coordinator and to legal counsel for the statutory Parties of the general vicinity of their ownership interest/residency location, and in particular in relation to the Proposed Development, by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 15, 2025; failing which the Appellant may move to have those requests, which have failed to comply, revoked. Such a motion, if necessary, is to be decided on its own merits.
ii. The following individuals shall provide written confirmation to the case coordinator and to legal counsel for the statutory Parties as to whether there is in fact an additional document that was inadvertently omitted from their original communication to the Tribunal on the filing of their Participant status request and statement forms – failure to do so may result in an incomplete statement that will be before the Tribunal:
i. Ryan Chang ii. Edward Fiore iii. Tessa Fiore iv. Steve Hillier v. Paul Hollingshead vi. Michael Moar vii. Rebecca Montanaro viii. Lanfah Theriault
13The Tribunal further directs that counsel for the Appellant contact the case coordinator to request a copy of any Participant status form and statement that Ms. Fleming advised had not yet been received by the Appellant to date.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
14Counsel for the Town advised that the Town has received a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) inclusive of Issues List (“IL”) from the Appellant’s counsel. However, the Town required further time to finalize same and expected to be in position to do so by May 15, 2026.
15The Parties agreed that notwithstanding the final PO remained pending, they had a good understanding of the nature of the issues in dispute which include, inter alia, hydrogeological, stormwater management, servicing, and design – all issues being matters that were thoroughly addressed through the municipal process. Both Parties agreed that they would each require up to 9 witnesses, and that a 4-week Hearing in early 2027 was an accurate estimate of the time required for a Merit Hearing.
16The Tribunal was satisfied that the PO could be finalized and filed in due course without the assistance of the Tribunal and without jeopardizing the accuracy of the number of Hearing dates anticipated to be required. Accordingly, the Tribunal so directed that the finalized PO, inclusive of IL, be filed by no later than 5 p.m. on Friday, May 15, 2026.
MERIT HEARING DETAILS
17Having reviewed the agreement on the possible number of witnesses and general scope of issues, the Tribunal ordered and set a 19-day Merit Hearing by video, commencing at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 6, 2027.
18Parties 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://meet.goto.com/558205565
Access code: 558-205-565
19Parties 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
20Persons 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) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1 888 299 1889. The access code is: 558-205-565.
21Individuals 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.
22As of March 30, 2026, all Hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.
ORDER
23The case management directives above are so ordered.
24There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, but may be available for case management, should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“N. Eisazadeh”
n. eisazadeh
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 A
INDIVIDUALS GRANTED PARTICIPANT STATUS
i. Nancy Almeida ii. Kathryn Boroski iii. Ryan Chang iv. Edward Fiore v. Tessa Fiore vi. Marguerite Flynn vii. T. Earl Goodeve viii. Steve Hillier ix. Paul Hollingshead x. Richard Houle xi. Lawrence Jacobs xii. Nik Krpan xiii. Patricia Lee xiv. Brian Madore xv. Marlene McDermott xvi. Michael Moar xvii. Rebecca Montanaro xviii. Rob Montanaro xix. Estelle Pereira xx. Greg Pereira xxi. Natasha Puga xxii. Andrew Savage xxiii. Yew Siang (Philip) Shim xxiv. Kathy Stephenson xxv. Lanfah Theriault xxvi. Helen Uong xxvii. Greg Vail xxviii. Katherine Waszkiewicz xxix. Michelle Wheaton